Barone's Arguments Against Affirmative Action

There are many supporters and opponents of Affirmative Action. The focus of Affirmative action is meant to be an attempt at equality throughout society. Every sector in America would be equal and unprejudiced. On the other hand, adopting affirmative action would force many employers to replace hard-working employees with those possibly less qualified simply due to their gender or ethnicity. Throughout history, people have been categorized into different groups. These groupings were based on certain characteristics people shared, whether it was their ethnicity, race, gender, or religion. Society is notorious for distinguishing among different groups and favoring one or two of them. Undoubtedly, this separation of peoples, led to increased tension between various groups. As time progressed, the conflicts intensified, and it became apparent that a change was necessary. So I intend to educate the reader on the origin of Affirmative Action; how it impacted the American society; is it still needed in today’s environment; what are some of the drawbacks or issues that came from implementing Affirmative Action, and finally what is the most beneficial aspect from Affirmative Action. One of the most famous quotes about Affirmative Action comes from President Lyndon Johnson who explained the rationale behind the use of affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity in a 1965 speech: “You do not take a person, who for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring

In the controversial realms of affirmative action, the largest issue staunchly fought over is whether minorities should be given preferential treatment in the workplace and in the schools. One side declares that those in the minority group need and deserve governmental aid so that they will be on equal footing with the majority group. Opponents of affirmative action point out that setting apart groups based on their race or ethnicity is purely racism and can lead to reverse discrimination. I am against affirmative action for the aforementioned reasons, and would not consider such racism as necessary for creating a healthy society, as proponents would insist. It is my belief that affirmative action today is out of date and is

The fact that, in most cases, a minority student will get accepted over a white student with the same or almost the same qualifications is causing controversy all over the nation. This is precisely the definition of affirmative action. In an excerpt titled Affirmative Action and the College Admissions Process from the book, 8 Steps to Help Black Families Pay For College, by Thomas and Will LaVeist, it is stated that, “affirmative action is meant to level the playing field and ensure that schools and businesses are not intentionally discriminating against minority groups.” This leveling of the playing field leads to the very broad generalization and misperception that the policy is allowing less-qualified minorities to take the place of the more-qualified whites.

In eight University of California campuses where affirmative action is no longer implemented the enrollment of black students only declined by 17% and the enrollment of Hispanics declined only by 6.9%. Even without the use of it, minorities are still getting into colleges. There is no need for discriminatory programs like affirmative action because there is not a big difference between minority groups and whites anymore. If some person has the potential and desire to succeed they can succeed. Everyone can do anything they want to do if they have what is takes to enter the university or job.

The revered civil rights activist Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “I look to a day when people will not be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character.” In other words, don’t discriminate people because of their race. This should hold true in all aspects of life. Every American deserves an equal opportunity to succeed, which is why affirmative action is inherently racist. Affirmative action refers to various government policies that aim to increase the proportion of minorities and women in jobs and educational institutions historically dominated by white men. The policies usually require employers and institutions to set goals for hiring or admitting minorities. It is responsible for colleges discriminating against Eastern Asians and whites and for employers hiring workers based off of skin color rather than skills or experience. People can’t change their race (except for former president of the Spokane N.A.A.C.P. chapter, Rachel Dolezal, apparently), yet many colleges and employers favor certain races over others by using quotas, or a fixed number of people of each race.

Companies and educational institutions greatly benefit from the guidelines of affirmative action because they profit from the different ideas, work styles, and contributions unique to each diverse individual. As quoted in Paul Connors’s compilation, Affirmative Action, President of Columbia University, Lee Bollinger, addresses the importance of a diverse educational system by stating, “The experience of arriving on a campus to live and study with classmates from a diverse range of backgrounds is essential to students' training for this new world, nurturing in them an instinct to reach out instead of clinging to the comforts of what seems natural or familiar” (12-13). A statement by Southeastern Oklahoma State University further supports the idea that success in modern day society stems from diversity saying, “Our country is strong because of the rich diversity of our culture, not in spite of it” (Affirmative Action).

There is an examination of the admission rates that demonstrates the mechanism by which the freshman pool of African American and Latino students has shrunk so dramatically” (Patricia Gandara). In California, these supposed benefits of affirmative action are not being seen. A study run by Liliana Garces “documented a 5% decline (from 2,010 to 1,906 students) from 1995 to 1996” of the minority group that was attending “five selective public law schools in California, Texas, and Washington” (Garces). These statistics help notify the public that affirmative action in these few states is actually having a reverse effect on these people, and in this situation affirmative action is creating no benefits for minorities. A similar study performed at UC Berkeley stated that “even as Chicano/Latinos increased their representation in the applicant pool at UC Berkeley from approximately 13 percent in 1995 to 19 percent in 2010, they experienced… nearly [a] 75 percent decline in the rate of admissions compared to just over 40 percent decline for whites” (Gandara). The facts prove that affirmative action at prestigious colleges is not helping minorities become accepted. It is a useless effort that the government is wasting their time on. Therefore concluding that affirmative action within this area is useless and leads many to wonder if we should even waste time on the

California's decision in 1996 to outlaw the use of race in public college admissions was widely viewed as the beginning of the end for affirmative action at public universities all over the United States. But in the four years since Californians passed Proposition 209, most states have agreed that killing affirmative action outright would deepen social inequality by denying minority citizens access to higher education. The half-dozen states that are actually thinking about abandoning race-sensitive

As affirmative action has become a simplistic strategy to decrease racial bigotry, it has developed into undermining the minority while producing favoritism. Additionally, the flawed policy has created preference within career fields and an academic mismatch among races. To eliminate this outdated system, financial-based affirmative action would serve as a revolutionary law that would help those suffering in poverty without highlighting the color of an individual 's skin.

The utilization of race in affirmative action policies in higher education has been a topic of contention for several decades now. Since the passing of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, we have seen some of the most heated debates over the fairness of affirmative action and the impacts on society the utilization of race creates. With such pending questions on fairness and of the constitutionality of affirmative action policies two major Supreme Court cases have arisen, University of California Regents v. Bakke and Grutter v. Bollinger, both impacting university admissions policies throughout the country and setting precedent in following rulings. Following the two rulings of these cases, I argue that affirmative action and the utilization of

There is no denying that the elimination of the process would drastically decrease the amount of minority applicants and the amount of diversity, but affirmative action is frankly discriminating against Asians. They often are disregarded and mistreated in the sense that their accomplishments are ignored. Because of the outstanding excellence of “Asian students on high school grades and pre-college aptitude tests, many colleges and universities, through unannounced policies, place these “minority students” at the back of the line” (Elder). It is extremely disappointing for these

Affirmative action was created to help end discrimination in the work place and in educational opportunities, but has given an unfair advantage to minority groups at the expense of more qualified individuals. Because employers and colleges must show that they are accepting a proportional amount of minorities in their application acceptance process, highly qualified

Many critics of affirmative action believe it has failed to achieve its stated goal of equal employment opportunity. A few even believe that it has done more harm than good. A review of the statistics, however, shows

March 6th, 1961 Affirmative Action policies in higher education were implemented (Infoplease). Affirmative Action was designed to provide equal access to universities for historically underrepresented minorities. The argument of whether Affirmative Action should be decimated is a simple one. Students who have the academic credentials and earn their way into college deserve to be accepted. For no reason should previously excluded minorities gain unfair leverage in an attempt to “right past wrongs”. But with Affirmative Action banned in only eight states, we are left with two questions; how exactly Affirmative Action affects the culture within universities to have it seen as an unjust policy, and can diversity continue to survive without this program.

A major controversy encompassing the country is the issue of affirmative action. Many believe that the abolition, or at least restructure, of affirmative action in the United States will benefit the nation for many logical reasons. Originally, affirmative action began as an attempt to eliminate discrimination and provide a source of opportunity; affirmative action did not begin as an attempt to support just minorities and women. In addition, affirmative action naturally creates resentment when the less qualified are preferred instead of the people actually deserve the admission or job. Another reason that has existed since the abolition of slavery is the myth that women and ?minorities? cannot compete